Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> \ <br /> Council Chamber <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> August 28, 1972 <br /> . Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the <br /> meeting held August 14, 1972 - was called to order by Council President Fred Mohr, in the <br /> absence of Mayor Anderson, at 7 :30 p. m. on August 28, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the <br /> following other councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, <br /> and Bradshaw. Mrs. Campbell was absent. <br /> I - Proclamations <br /> A. Canvass of votes cast August 17, 1972 in election to exceed 6% limitation by <br /> $2,175,214 was presented, showing votes cast For - 4~339; Against - 3,564. <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to accept the proclamation. Motion <br /> carried unanimously. <br /> B. Proclaiming week of September 4 through 10, 1972 as "Union Label Week" was presented. <br /> Assistant Manager explained, on questioning from Co,uncil members, that the Mayor: <br /> traditionally makes this type of proclamation, but since he is out of town it was <br /> felt better that it be made by the Council collectively. / <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to issue the proclamation. M' ;' d <br /> otlon carrle <br /> . unanimously. <br /> II - Public Hearings <br /> A. Appeal, Phase One, Southridge Planned Unit Development (West of Willamette, north of <br /> 52nd) - Decision of the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1972 meeting granting pre- <br /> liminary approval for Phase One of the Southrdige PUD, located west of Willamette Street <br /> north of 52nd Avenue, was appealed to the Council by Jean Smith (Mrs. Richard J.), <br /> 5290 Saratoga Street, in her own behalf and representing the South Eugene Homeowner's <br /> Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the finding that the permit cri- <br /> teria (a) through(e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use Ordinance had been met <br /> was not supported by evidence in the record. <br /> B. Appeal, BALSM PUD (Southwest of Donald, west of Fox Hollow) - Decision of the Planning <br /> Commission at its August 7, 1972 meeting granting preliminary approval for the BALSM PUD, <br /> located southwest of Donald Street and west of Fox Hollow Road, was appealed to the <br /> Council by Cormac J. Dillon, 5410 Saratoga Street, in his own behalf and, representing <br /> I the South Eugene Homeowner's Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the <br /> finding that the permit criteria (a) through (e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use <br /> Ordinance had been met was not supported by evidence in the record. <br /> I <br /> Notices of appeals, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, <br /> . were read, and it was noted that Council had also received copies of memo from the Plan- <br /> ning Commission setting forth conditions upon which approval was based, with co~ies of <br /> staff notes and Commission minutes of the July 12 and August 7, 1972 meetings. Copies <br /> of excerpt 'from the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.782) governing Permit Criteria were <br /> distributed to Council members with agenda of this meeting. <br /> I Councilman Mohr explained the nature of the appeals and rules by which the hearing would <br /> be conducted. He said the Council has before it substantial record of Planning Com- <br /> ,mission hearings and would therefore hear only summary statements as to the issues or <br /> new information nq:t:,already in the record. ...The Co~cil, he said, would be considering <br /> only whether the Planning Commission erred in making its decision based on ordinances <br /> governing planned unit developments. He stated the Council's policy of holding items <br /> in the event of disagreement with Planning Commission decisions until such time as it <br /> can be discussed at a joint session of the two bodies. <br /> Mrs. Baal inquired whether the total project is being considered or only whether the <br /> Planning Commission erred. That is, if it is found the Planning Commission, 'did not err <br /> according to the permit criteria, must the Council rule in favor of the Planning Commis- <br /> sion? Can the Council decide whether the entire project is a good idea? Mr. Mohr said <br /> the appellant is not basing the appeal on a matter of judgment but claims the Commission <br /> erred in not taking into account certain conditions for planned unit developments. On <br /> . further questions from Mr. McDonald, Mr. Mohr said the Council could overturn the Com- <br /> mission decision if they decide no error was made in the record or procedure, yet the <br /> judgment was wrong. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Jim Korth further explained procedure for appeals as governed by <br /> ordinance and read the applicable section. He said the final decision would be either <br /> that the total proposal meets the applicable criteria or it does not, and in making a <br /> decision that the Commission is in error, the error must be designated. <br /> .z, ~l:J <br /> 8/28/72 - 1 <br /> ... <br />